*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

It's the same idea as living on flood plains/zones and what not. Rather than admitting defeat, we just dump enormous resources into maintaining our precarious hold in areas that really aren't all that great for habitation.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

It's the same idea as living on flood plains/zones and what not. Rather than admitting defeat, we just dump enormous resources into maintaining our precarious hold in areas that really aren't all that great for habitation.

I don't live in a wildfire prone area so the idea of having to shut down the equipment due to heat issues while the fire is still a mile away kinda boggles my mind.. Do wildfires generate that much heat or is the equipment really just super sensitive?

I don't live in a wildfire prone area so the idea of having to shut down the equipment due to heat issues while the fire is still a mile away kinda boggles my mind.. Do wildfires generate that much heat or is the equipment really just super sensitive?

Heat raises the noise in the receivers, or if the receivers are cooled, the heat exceeds the cooling capacity. I don't think anything breaks.

I don't live in a wildfire prone area so the idea of having to shut down the equipment due to heat issues while the fire is still a mile away kinda boggles my mind.. Do wildfires generate that much heat or is the equipment really just super sensitive?

They lost power, and probably had to turn off part of the normal HVAC system, which means that combined with the normal heat during this nice warm summer they probably were running hot compared to normal. Likely their generators are meant for short term, which is expected.

"The Bar K restaurant, about a five-minute drive from the observatory and a favorite luncheon spot for those at the Array, was destroyed after the fire crossed highway 89"

so the useful thing was destroyed and the giant waste of time survived.

let's assume they hit the 1-in-a-googleplex chance of confirming alien life...then what? go public with it? maybe, maybe not. besides knocking society on its ass, what would it accomplish? remember, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and that's what any alien attackers would be bringing to the party.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

I would classify parts of the Great Lakes area as being pretty safe. I'm in Chicago, and we don't really get flooding from the lake, we don't get many tornados in the areas near to the lake, and so forth. So barring the New Madrid fault rupturing violently I'd say we're pretty safe in this area.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

Where I live is over 250m above sea level, and would likely be safe from even a mega tsunami.It's seismically inactive, unaffected by cyclonic storms, floods, wildfires or avalanches, and there have been no droughts, heat waves, insect swarms, tornadoes or monster attacks since records began and probably ever.

However it isn't safe from the hordes of refugees and hobos that would flood in, if a disaster happened elsewhere.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

There's nowhere completely safe, certainly. That said, at least in Seattle we don't have regular natural disaster seasons like, say, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes and so forth. Yes, we're at risk of earthquakes but even those tend not to be all that bad. There's also a risk of volcanic eruption. Both earthquake and volcanic risks can be almost completely avoided by choice of living area. The same can be said of flooding.

So, while not entirely safe from any conceivable risk, Seattle's a reasonably safe place to live and certainly safer than many places.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

Well... to be frank Kelantan of Malaysia is pretty safe. Middle of the earth and all (I forget the word in english). other than end of year tropical monsoon (which is not that bad, just remember your umbrella), there is nothing serious. no volcano, no earthquake, no storm. no heavy snow. no summer heat wave.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

Well... to be frank Kelantan of Malaysia is pretty safe. Middle of the earth and all (I forget the word in english). other than end of year tropical monsoon (which is not that bad, just remember your umbrella), there is nothing serious. no volcano, no earthquake, no storm. no heavy snow. no summer heat wave.

It's the same idea as living on flood plains/zones and what not. Rather than admitting defeat, we just dump enormous resources into maintaining our precarious hold in areas that really aren't all that great for habitation.

Wildfires are a classic case of the authorities thinking they're cleverer than nature, and then everyone getting pwned. If little fires were allowed to burn themselves out like what happens in rural states, there woudln't be so much buildup of stuff waiting to all go up at once.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

It's all relative, but sure. There are certainly places that don't get burned down, flooded, tornadoed, or the like several times a year.

I would guess the biggest risk is the heat warping the dishes. But the Allen is designed to use a lot of small dishes in parallel rather than one mega dish, so it might be more immune to heat damage. The dish in Puerto Rico has to literally be tuned physically to keep it in shape.

Or living in earthquake zones where in (almost) living memory, an earthquake caused the destruction of over 80% of the then-largest city west of the Mississippi. Maybe airbnb can set up a special section for people to host pre-refugees from the disaster-prone SF & Peninsula region...

... Rather than admitting defeat, we just dump enormous resources into maintaining our precarious hold in areas that really aren't all that great for habitation.

Actually, the reason that people live there and want to remain there even after disasters is precisely that they are very desirable areas to live in. Note that after the destruction of much of the New Orleans area, it was the less-desirable (cheaper) areas that lagged in rebuilding, or weren't rebuilt at all.

It's the same idea as living on flood plains/zones and what not. Rather than admitting defeat, we just dump enormous resources into maintaining our precarious hold in areas that really aren't all that great for habitation.

Wildfires are a classic case of the authorities thinking they're cleverer than nature, and then everyone getting pwned. If little fires were allowed to burn themselves out like what happens in rural states, there woudln't be so much buildup of stuff waiting to all go up at once.

I would classify parts of the Great Lakes area as being pretty safe. I'm in Chicago, and we don't really get flooding from the lake, we don't get many tornados in the areas near to the lake, and so forth. So barring the New Madrid fault rupturing violently I'd say we're pretty safe in this area.

Safer from the sudden news-making disaster, sure. But.. the winters. You can't call those temperatures "safe" for human habitation. And the death toll from cold, accidents on icy roads, carbon monoxide from faulty heaters, heart attacks while shoveling snow, etc... Over time it's probably about the same as a natural disaster in any given area of the U.S.

Not that I didn't enjoy my visit to your fine city when my previous employer decided to hold a three-day meeting there -- in midwinter -- some years ago. (I was stopped and questioned by TSA agents at LAX who simply couldn't understand why I was carrying a great heavy coat when it was 80 degrees outside.)

I've lived in L.A. most of my life. I've never seen a tornado, I still can't figure out what "freezing rain" is, and I've only once had to shovel snow off a sidewalk (while visiting relatives elsewhere). Then again, I have vivid memories of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and would very much prefer to be somewhere else when the Big One hits. But so far we can't predict quakes that way, so we upgrade our building standards and wait. I also remember orange skies and falling ash from numerous wildfires in the area over the years. . It's just a part of life here.

That said, I wouldn't build a house back in the canyons in Malibu. Fires roaring through those narrow canyons, no access for firefighters.... No thank you. (Not that I could ever afford to build a house in Malibu.)

It's the same idea as living on flood plains/zones and what not. Rather than admitting defeat, we just dump enormous resources into maintaining our precarious hold in areas that really aren't all that great for habitation.

Wildfires are a classic case of the authorities thinking they're cleverer than nature, and then everyone getting pwned. If little fires were allowed to burn themselves out like what happens in rural states, there woudln't be so much buildup of stuff waiting to all go up at once.

With global climate change, there will be more lightning storms and thus more fires like this.

As a native Californian, I can back the statement that controlled burns are a normal part of life around here. However, when you're in the midst of a once-in-a-century drought, all bets are off at how effective they are at actually preventing worse fires.

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

I'm surprised this is such a controversial comment. I think people simply exaggerate dangers that are outside of their normal experience, and tend to downplay those they've lived with all their lives. Here are some convenient US government fatality figures from 2009:

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

There's nowhere completely safe, certainly. That said, at least in Seattle we don't have regular natural disaster seasons like, say, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes and so forth. Yes, we're at risk of earthquakes but even those tend not to be all that bad. There's also a risk of volcanic eruption. Both earthquake and volcanic risks can be almost completely avoided by choice of living area. The same can be said of flooding.

So, while not entirely safe from any conceivable risk, Seattle's a reasonably safe place to live and certainly safer than many places.

Other than the earthquakes, volcanoes, and rising sea levels, sure. I grew up in blizzard country, but I can admit it's very easy to die in a blizzard.

PS: Mt. Rainier, "America's Most Dangerous Volcano." "A large lahar, traveling at 30 miles an hour, would quickly sweep over Orting and continue down the Puyallup Valley, towards more densely populated areas... In all, 30,000 Puyallup River Valley residents could be in direct danger, along with 100,000 people living in the mountain's six other valleys."

*mentally increments the number of times he's been glad not to live elsewhere.

You know, this reminds me of a documentary I watched about CA wildfires... They were interviewing *multiple families* whose homes had been destroyed *multiple times.* I don't recall the specifics, but one of the families didn't leave their home during a wildfire and were nearly killed. That family *still* planned to rebuild and live in their mansion in same location. You would think at some point you'd pack up and leave. I think I would...

Are there any SAFE places to live?

I'm surprised this is such a controversial comment. I think people simply exaggerate dangers that are outside of their normal experience, and tend to downplay those they've lived with all their lives. Here are some convenient US government fatality figures from 2009: